Under the umbrella of epistemic injustice communication and epistemic injustice in clinical encounters: a critical scoping review

Liz Jonas , Sondra Bacharach , Sarah Nightingale , Sara Filoche
{"title":"Under the umbrella of epistemic injustice communication and epistemic injustice in clinical encounters: a critical scoping review","authors":"Liz Jonas ,&nbsp;Sondra Bacharach ,&nbsp;Sarah Nightingale ,&nbsp;Sara Filoche","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.101039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Concordant communication between a patient and healthcare practitioner is a critical proponent of effective care. Prejudiced communication from healthcare practitioners creates vulnerability for Epistemic Injustice and is a barrier to Culturally Safe Care. The language used to detect, address and mitigate instances of Epistemic Injustice during clinical interactions is currently unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This review seeks to address this gap by assessing current understandings of Epistemic Injustice during patient-healthcare practitioner clinical interactions and suggest pathways to promote health equity policy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology and Grant and Booth’s critical appraisal framework to review articles from four databases: WEB of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Medline. Following a literature review to inform inclusion criteria, studies were assessed for detectable themes of Epistemic Injustice in relation to patient-healthcare practitioner communication during clinical encounters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Initially, 2729 studies were identified, and 44 studies were included. Two major themes are discussed in this review: (1) Types of Epistemic Injustice and (2) Counterparts of Epistemic Injustice.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Currently, literature does not directly discuss experiences of clinical Epistemic Injustice, rather discussion occurs across a network of similar linguistic identifiers, which hinders detection and subsequent mitigation of Epistemic Injustice in clinical settings. By modeling a definition for clinical Epistemic Injustice, educational resources from which patients, practitioners and policy developers alike can draw from are suggested. Basing future mitigation strategies on these findings supports pathways to reducing health disparity, especially for marginalized communities, and promoting equity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101039"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552524000744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Concordant communication between a patient and healthcare practitioner is a critical proponent of effective care. Prejudiced communication from healthcare practitioners creates vulnerability for Epistemic Injustice and is a barrier to Culturally Safe Care. The language used to detect, address and mitigate instances of Epistemic Injustice during clinical interactions is currently unknown.

Objective

This review seeks to address this gap by assessing current understandings of Epistemic Injustice during patient-healthcare practitioner clinical interactions and suggest pathways to promote health equity policy.

Methods

This study utilized Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology and Grant and Booth’s critical appraisal framework to review articles from four databases: WEB of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Medline. Following a literature review to inform inclusion criteria, studies were assessed for detectable themes of Epistemic Injustice in relation to patient-healthcare practitioner communication during clinical encounters.

Results

Initially, 2729 studies were identified, and 44 studies were included. Two major themes are discussed in this review: (1) Types of Epistemic Injustice and (2) Counterparts of Epistemic Injustice.

Conclusions

Currently, literature does not directly discuss experiences of clinical Epistemic Injustice, rather discussion occurs across a network of similar linguistic identifiers, which hinders detection and subsequent mitigation of Epistemic Injustice in clinical settings. By modeling a definition for clinical Epistemic Injustice, educational resources from which patients, practitioners and policy developers alike can draw from are suggested. Basing future mitigation strategies on these findings supports pathways to reducing health disparity, especially for marginalized communities, and promoting equity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
期刊最新文献
Short report: UNESCO's role in bioethics - From the country level to the international conversation in bioethics Health law and bioethics in France Why we must reread Aeschylus? Public policy and asylum law Medical and museum collaboration for iconodiagnosis in dermatology: the example of the Musée de Fécamp BYOD use and perception among hospital clinicians – A qualitative study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1